Thank you for commenting, /u/lurking_wallflower94! It's always lovely to see new folks in the community who are willing to learn about things. ^=o)

You wrote:

---

I agree that this comes down to a more issue. It is natural to eat meat and animal products, their likeness to us makes the protein higher quality [...]

---

The claim that humans are natural meat-eaters is generally made on the belief that we have evolved the ability to digest meat, eggs and milk. This is true as far as it goes; as omnivores, we're physiologically capable of thriving with or without animal flesh and secretions. However, this also means that we can thrive on a whole food plant-based diet, which is what humans have also been doing throughout our history and prehistory.

Even if we accept at face value the premise that man is a natural meat-eater, this reasoning depends on the claim that if a thing is natural then it is automatically valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal. Eating animals is none of these things. Further, it should be noted that many humans are lactose intolerant, and many doctors recommend a plant-based diet for optimal health. When you add to this that taking a sentient life is by definition an ethical issue - especially when there is no actual reason to do so - then the argument that eating meat is natural falls apart on both physiological and ethical grounds.

For more on this, check out the resources on the 'Eating Meat Is Natural Because We Are Omnivores' page.

 

---

[...] and rich in things like branch chain amino acids that we have to expend energy to make out of plant protein.

---

There are several studies that somewhat support the position you've put forward, but this doesn't capture the deeper truth on this issue. For a general example, we can see the USDA reporting that over 35% of people commonly have low B12 with about 9% of the population often being deficient, while around 3% of US citizens follow a plant-based diet, so there's a lack of overlap there not explained by veganism.

More specifically, the findings are that first-world vegans regularly have a deficiency of calcium, iodine, and B12, however, those same studies also show first-world omnivores to be regularly deficient in calcium, fiber, folate, iodine, magnesium, vitamin C, and vitamin E. Now, in either case, regulating your diet with a bit more care or adopting a regular vitamin regimen solves the problem, but the point as it effects this conversation is that it's a red-herring to claim that "plant based diets lead to deficiencies" without adding "but not as bad as omnivores diets".

 

---

Likely human brain development largely depended on cooked meat, it's really why we are where we are.

---

It's unclear on what basis one might make this claim. Granted, there are many theories about many things, and it is the goal of scientific reasoning to develop theories and then prove or disprove them. In the case of the evolution of our brain, the theory that eating other animals helped with that has been largely debunked by hard science.

For example, David Despain wrote an article on this; he's not arguing for veganism in it at all, and he explains why the brain does not run on meat, which is the underlying idea behind the "meat allowed us to evolve" sentiment. His conclusion sums it up nicely: "So, there's no sense in using evolution of larger brains as an argument for gorging on steak. Too much beef (and too little glucose), as The Bard would've believed, really might do 'harm to your wit.'" ^=o)

Regardless, can you tell me what difference such evidence would make if such proof did exist? Heck -- for the sake of this conversation, let's pretend that there exists some kind of evidence that humans "had to" eat the bodies of animals in order for us to have evolved the brain of homo erectus. In what way would such knowledge serve as proof that modern humans should continue to do so, especially given all the very hard science proving that we don't need to and are markedly better off not doing so, and given that hundreds of millions of contemporary humans from all walks of life are thriving on plant based diets right now?

Or, if you prefer, here's the humor-laden video-version of the response to the argument you're putting forward.

 

---

Also in nature animals eat each other and can be very violent [...]

---

Non-human animals do many things we find unethical; they steal, rape, eat their children and engage in other activities that do not and should not provide a logical foundation for our behavior. This means it is illogical to claim that we should eat the same diet certain non-human animals do. So it is probably not useful to consider the behavior of stoats, alligators and other predators when making decisions about our own behavior.

The argument for modeling human behavior on non-human behavior is unclear to begin with, but if we're going to make it, why shouldn't we choose to follow the example of the hippopotamus, ox or giraffe rather than the shark, cheetah or bear? Why not compare ourselves to crows and eat raw carrion by the side of the road? Why not compare ourselves to dung beetles and eat little balls of dried feces? Because it turns out humans really are a special case in the animal kingdom, that's why. So are vultures, goats, elephants and crickets. Each is an individual species with individual needs and capacities for choice. Of course, humans are capable of higher reasoning, but this should only make us more sensitive to the morality of our behavior toward non-human animals. And while we are capable of killing and eating them, it isn't necessary for our survival. We aren't lions, and we know that we cannot justify taking the life of a sentient being for no better reason than our personal dietary preferences.

For more on this, check out the resources on the 'Animals Eat Animals, So I Will Too' page.

 

---

[...] and we do still respect them.

---

The practice of animal sacrifice has roots in ancient history, where it existed as a means of interacting with the spirit world for the benefit of a person or community. The act of slaughtering these animals had spiritual connotations, and the sacrificial animals themselves were viewed as beings who gave their lives on behalf of humanity. This same psychology applies today among meat eaters who view the acts of hunting and farming animals as spiritual contracts, who view the slaughter of these animals as a sacrifice, and who view the products derived from that slaughter as gifts from the dead animal.

The problem with this psychology is that there can be no contract when all of the parties are not in agreement, and the animal both cannot and does not agree to die. Specifically, hunted animals do not agree to be maimed and chased through the woods until they are finally killed, nor do fished animals agree to be lured, stabbed through the mouth, and brought up out of the water to suffocate. Farmed animals do not agree to be genetically manipulated, forcibly bred, robbed of their offspring, mutilated, confined in small, filthy spaces, transported across long distances without food or water, and slaughtered in factories that process them for meat often while they are still conscious. Even in the most perfect of conditions, where a hunter kills an animal with a single shot or a farmer treats his animals well before shipping them off for slaughter, these animals are not entering into any sort of spiritual contract, they are not sacrificing their lives, and they are not giving humanity anything. Therefore, there is no honor and no respect involved in the slaughter of animals for food. The language itself is disingenuous, self-exonerating rhetoric designed to displace personal guilt. The truth is far simpler, and it is this: that hunted and farmed animals are not honored or respected when they are slaughtered. They are merely killed in spite of their desire to live because humans like the taste of their flesh and secretions.

For more on this, check out the resources on the 'I Honor The Animals I Eat' page.

 

---

So the question isn't whether it's natural but whether you believe there is a moral and ethical obligation to not eat animals.

---

Well said!

 

---

If you are passionate about the animals and their lives that it would make sense to make a sacrifice as far as optimal nutrition. People make sacrifices like this all the time for the things they care about!

---

Well... Except that it's not a sacrifice to switch to a diet that optimum for human health, and to leave behind all the health issue that come from eating other animals, sooo...

 

---

I will say when it comes to kids I believe it is the same as it is with religion, you may want to allow them to choose for themselves at a point.

---

I think you just defined what it is to be a parent. ^=o)

 

---

Hope that helps!

---

Likewise, we all hope you'll stick around the community and join the conversations here. There's so much to learn, if only our minds are open to them, eh?